Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Defendants appealed the district court's grant of a preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of four state laws that regulate abortion: the Arkansas Unborn Child Protection from Dismemberment Abortion Act, the Sex Discrimination by Abortion Prohibition Act, an amendment concerning the disposition of fetal remains, and an amendment concerning the maintenance of forensic samples from abortions performed on a child. On June 29, 2020, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in June Medical Services L. L. C. v. Russo, 140 S. Ct. 2103 (2020), holding unconstitutional a Louisiana law requiring doctors who perform abortions to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.The Eighth Circuit vacated the district court's preliminary injunction and remanded for reconsideration in light of Chief Justice Roberts's separate opinion in June Medical, which is controlling, as well as the Supreme Court's decision in Box v. Planned Parenthood of Ind. & Ky., Inc., 139 S. Ct. 1780 (2019) (per curiam). View "Hopkins v. Jegley" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against two police officers, alleging claims of excessive force under 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff's claims arose from the officers' response from a caller regarding two highly intoxicated individuals walking around a residential neighborhood knocking on doors.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Officer Smith based on qualified immunity, holding that the undisputed evidence in the record established that it was reasonable for Officer Smith to approach plaintiff as a potential suspect in an assault investigation who posed a threat to officer safety; Officer Smith's arm-bar takedown and later push into the ground did not rise to the level of unreasonable uses of force; and Officer Smith's use of the taser did not violate a clearly established right where a reasonable officer in Smith's position could have perceived plaintiff to be resisting arrest and could have feared for his safety. The court also affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Sergeant Stoler based on qualified immunity, holding that Sergeant Stoler's movement of plaintiff from the back of the squad car after plaintiff was tangled up in his handcuffs, an at least passively resisting suspect, was not gratuitous or unnecessarily violent. View "Kohorst v. Smith" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Arkansas prisoners who are or were on death row for capital murder convictions, filed suit alleging that Arkansas' method of execution violated the Eighth Amendment. Plaintiffs served subpoenas on several state correctional departments, seeking information about the existence of known and available alternatives that would significantly reduce a substantial risk of severe pain. NDCS objected and asserted that the subpoena violated Nebraska's right to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment.In In Re Missouri Dep't of Nat. Res., 105 F.3d 434 (8th Cir. 1997), the Eighth Circuit stated that there is no authority for the position that the Eleventh Amendment shields government entities from discovery in federal court. Therefore, the district court properly determined that Missouri DNR disposes of the sovereign immunity issue. Although Missouri DNR involved a petition for a writ of mandamus, the court found that the breadth of the decision controlling and applicable in this de novo review context as well. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "McGehee v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against O.J.'s Cafe under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging that the slopes in the restaurant's parking lot deprived him of full and equal enjoyment of the facility. The restaurant made improvements to the lot and then the district court dismissed plaintiff's claims as moot.The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court correctly determined that there was no ongoing injury sufficient to establish Article III standing. In this case, the district court found that any excess slopes in the parking lot were located in areas that would not interfere with plaintiff's access to the restaurant and this finding is supported by the record. View "Hillesheim v. O.J.'s Cafe, Inc." on Justia Law

After Mark Ivey died while in jail, Mark's father (plaintiff) filed suit under Missouri's wrongful death statute against three jail employees under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging claims of deliberate indifference to Mark's serious medical needs. Plaintiff also filed suit against the county on the ground that its failure to train the officers caused Mark's death. The coroner ruled that Mark's cause of death was acute asthma exacerbation. The district court denied summary judgment as to all defendants.The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that the officers did not violate clearly established law and are entitled to qualified immunity. The court held that the officers here faced a materially different situation than in McRaven v. Sanders, 577 F.3d 974 (8th Cir. 2009). In this case, Mark was conscious and able to communicate; he told the officers that he did not want medical assistance and raised various complaints to the nurse who checked on him; and, even assuming the officers knew Mark had asthma or was withdrawing from drugs, the record shows Mark affirmatively declined their offers to assist him with those difficulties. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve the county's appeal where the question of whether it is liable for failing to train its officers is not inextricably intertwined with the matter of qualified immunity. View "Ivey v. Audrain County" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of habeas relief to petitioner, who was convicted of one count of first degree murder and two counts of attempted first degree murder. In this case, the Minnesota Supreme Court issued a list of basic rules for spectators at trial and required spectators to show photographic identification before being allowed entry into the courtroom. On direct appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected petitioner's argument that the identification requirement violated his Sixth Amendment public right to trial.The court held that petitioner failed to demonstrate that the Minnesota Supreme Court's decision -- that no closure occurred because there was no evidence that the requirement was enforced -- is both contrary to and an unreasonable application of Waller v. Georgia, 467 U.S. 39 (1984), and Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209 (2010) (per curiam). Finally, the court declined to exercise its discretion by expanding the certificate of appealability. View "Taylor v. Dayton" on Justia Law

Plaintiff filed suit against JJSC for discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), alleging that the company denied him full and equal access to one of its service and gas stations. After removal to federal court, the district court dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.The Eighth Circuit held that plaintiff lacks standing to bring an ADA claim based on the accessibility of the stations' slopes and accessible routes where he failed to allege or provide evidence showing that he intends to patronize the station in the imminent future. Furthermore, he concedes that he did not observe any potential hazards related to the slope. The court also held that the district court properly concluded that the accessible parking claim is moot where JJSC had remedied plaintiff's concerns. Finally, the court explained that when a federal court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over a removed case, it must remand it to state court even if, as is true here, the removed claim is one arising under federal, not state, law. Therefore, the court vacated the district court's judgment dismissing plaintiff's complaint and instructed the district court to remand to state court. View "Dalton v. JJSC Properties, LLC" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs filed suit challenging Section 204D.13(2) of the Minnesota Statutes, which requires that major party candidates be listed on the ballot in reverse order of the parties' electoral showing in the last general election. Plaintiffs contend that the law irrationally disadvantages their preferred political candidates and is therefore unconstitutional. The district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining the law's enforcement and prescribed instead a lottery-based system of ordering candidates on Minnesota ballots. Political committees intervened and moved to stay the injunction.As a preliminary matter, the Eighth Circuit held that plaintiffs have Article III standing by alleging a cognizable and redressable injury fairly traceable to the statute. On the merits of the preliminary injunction, the court held that intervenors have shown that, absent a stay, they would be irreparably injured.As to intervenors' likelihood of success, the court held that, under the Anderson/Burdick standard, the burdens imposed by section 204D.13(2) do not unconstitutionally violate the rights asserted. The court considered the character and magnitude of the asserted injury, and observed that the statute does not in any way restrict voting or ballot access; the statute neither systematically advantages incumbents nor advantages the state’s most popular party; but, rather, the statute favors candidates from parties other than the one that received the most votes (on average) in the last general election. In this case, Minnesota's justifications are rationally related to placing political parties in reverse order of popularity and, by design, the statute cannot advantage the state's predominant party. Furthermore, incumbents cannot count on using the statute's operation to its advantage and the statute promotes political diversity. Therefore, the court granted the motion to stay the injunction pending appeal. View "Pavek v. Donald J. Trump for President, Inc." on Justia Law

After plaintiff was assaulted by another inmate with a wooden board at a correctional facility, he suffered head injuries that require life-long medical treatment and has developed a seizure disorder. Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against seven correctional facility officials, alleging that each violated his Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment by failing to protect him from a substantial risk of serious harm.The Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's grant of defendants' motion to dismiss based on failure to state a claim, holding that plaintiff failed to plausibly allege an Eighth Amendment violation. In this case, the amended complaint failed to allege that defendant had previously been threatened by the assailant or by another inmate; that the assailant was known to be a violent, volatile inmate; that plaintiff and the assailant had previously argued or fought, been cellmates at any time, or even knew each other; or that either plaintiff or the assailant have recently been in protective custody or in a restrictive status such as administrative segregation. The court explained that plaintiff was the unfortunate victim of a surprise attack and thus his failure-to-protect claim failed. View "Vandevender v. Sass" on Justia Law

AVF is sponsoring a ballot initiative to amend the Arkansas Constitution’s redistricting provisions and began circulating a petition during the COVID–19 pandemic. The Arkansas Constitution and statutes require canvassers to attach to the petition an affidavit affirming that all the petition signatures were made in the presence of the canvasser. The plaintiffs claim they cannot comply with these requirements during the pandemic; all are particularly vulnerable to COVID–19 because of age or medical conditions. They claimed enforcement of the requirements during the pandemic would impermissibly burden their First Amendment rights to express their position on a political matter. The district court preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of the requirements.The Eighth Circuit reversed. The district court erroneously applied strict scrutiny; neither requirement violates the First Amendment. The court noted that the right to a state initiative process is not guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, but is created by state law; states have considerable leeway to protect the integrity of the process. The Arkansas Code provides accommodations for individuals who require assistance signing an initiative petition and, even without those accommodations, there are simple ways to safely comply with the in-person signature requirement during the pandemic. The requirement imposes real burdens but not severe burdens, and serves important interests in preventing signatures from ineligible voters. View "Miller v. Thurston" on Justia Law